ІМПЛІЦИТНІ ЗНАЧЕННЯ ДИСКУРСУ ПОЛІЦЕЙСЬКОГО ДОПИТУ

The purpose of the study is to examine, investigate and analyse the implied meanings in police interrogation discourse from the perspective of the role markers of participants in communication (a police officer and an interrogated person) at the stage of pre-trial interrogation. The following research methods have been applied in the study: pragmatic and semantic analyses including the concepts of “face” and “politeness”, methods of identification of conversational implicatures to describe pragmatic indices of communicative roles; in the format of discursive analysis a special place belongs to the study of elements of the method of critical discourse analysis to identify patterns of planning and course of interrogation discourse given the factors of institutional, interpersonal and psychological contexts; elements of the method of conversational analysis of discourse to determine such parameters as paired opposing roles, relevant and preferential / non-preferential role positions. The results of the work show that the roles of an investigator and an interrogated person in the discourse of pre-trail investigation are presented in the explicit and implicit ways. The markers of the communicative role of an investigator and an interrogated person depend on the degree of implicitness or explicitness of their presentation in the interrogation. From the analysis we can conclude that the roles are most explicitly marked by lexical means reinforced by adverbs-intensifiers. Non-preferential roles of an investigator (implicit and explicit ones) at the pre-trial stage of investigation require verbal means to mitigate the ‘threat’ of the respondent (indefinite pronouns, modal verbs, idiomatic expressions that reduce the categorical nature of the accusation). More implicit presentation of communicative roles of a police officer and an interrogated person cause the use of nominalization and double negation and is a weakened kind of statement. Implicit forms of expression of the communicative roles of an interrogated person are marked by various means of syntactic and semantic-syntactic levels.Key words: discourse of pre-trial investigation, interrogation, communicative role, implicature, presupposition. Мета статті – вивчити, дослідити і проаналізувати імпліцитні значення в дискурсі поліцейського допиту на етапі досудово-го слідства з точки зору маркерів ролей учасників спілкування (слідчого та допитуваного). Матеріалом дослідження слугували транскрипти допитів на етапі досудового слідства США і Великої Британії, отримані методом суцільної вибірки. У роботі були застосовані такі методи дослідження: прагматичний та семантичний аналіз, включаючи концепти «обличчя» та «ввічливість», методи ідентифікації конверсаційних імплікатур для опису прагматичних показників комунікативних ролей; у форматі дис-курсивного аналізу особливе місце належить дослідженню елементів методу критичного аналізу дискурсу для виявлення закономірностей планування та перебігу дискурсу допиту з урахуванням факторів інституційного, міжособистісного та психо-логічного контекстів; елементи методу конверсаційного аналізу дискурсу для визначення таких параметрів, як парні зустрічні ролі, релевантні і преференційні / непреференційні рольові позиції, а також для з’ясування структуростворювального потенці-алу зміни комунікативних ролей в розвитку сценарію допиту. Результати дослідження показують, що ролі слідчого та допи-туваного в дискурсі досудового слідства можуть бути представлені експліцитно і імпліцитно. У результаті аналізу матеріалу ми приходимо до висновку, що маркери комунікативних ролей слідчого та допитуваного залежать від ступеня експліцитності й імпліцитності їх представлення у дискурсі допиту. Аналіз показав, що ролі найбільш чітко позначені лексичними засобами і прислівниками інтенсифікаторами. Непреференційні ролі слідчого (імпліцитні та експліцитні) на етапі досудового розслі-дування вимагають лінгвістичних засобів для мітігації «загрози» допитуваному (неозначені займенники, модальні дієслова, ідіоматичні вирази, що зменшують категоричність звинувачення). Більш імпліцитне програвання комунікативних ролей слід-чого та допитуваного вимагає використання номіналізації (зокрема, герундія) та подвійного заперечення і є ослабленим видом твердження. Імпліцитні форми вираження комунікативних ролей допитуваної особи відзначаються різноманітними засобами синтаксичного та семантико-синтаксичного рівнів. Ключові слова: дискурс допиту, досудове слідство, комунікативна роль, імплікатура, пресупозиція.

"You have the right to remain silent, so why are you talking?" : interrogation rights, decision making, and the availability heuristic

A police interrogation is one mechanism by which a false confession is sometimes obtained, which in turn can lead to a wrongful conviction. Given the severity of this consequence, rights for criminal suspects have been developed to protect the innocent. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of these rights has been called into question, as there is evidence that most people do not fully understand their rights, and the rate at which people choose to waive their rights is extremely high. The current study examined factors relating to people's interpretation of their rights when asked to speak with police. It was found that participants retained their rights at higher rates than expected. In addition, the results indicate that it is possible to affect waiver rates by manipulating the availability of information relating to negative or positive interrogation outcomes. This could have practical implications for how criminal suspects' rights are administered.

"You have the right to remain silent, so why are you talking?" : interrogation rights, decision making, and the availability heuristic

A police interrogation is one mechanism by which a false confession is sometimes obtained, which in turn can lead to a wrongful conviction. Given the severity of this consequence, rights for criminal suspects have been developed to protect the innocent. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of these rights has been called into question, as there is evidence that most people do not fully understand their rights, and the rate at which people choose to waive their rights is extremely high. The current study examined factors relating to people's interpretation of their rights when asked to speak with police. It was found that participants retained their rights at higher rates than expected. In addition, the results indicate that it is possible to affect waiver rates by manipulating the availability of information relating to negative or positive interrogation outcomes. This could have practical implications for how criminal suspects' rights are administered.

Perception, practice and proximity. Qualifying threats as psychological torture in international law.

Background: Fear is a central dimension of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (hereafter ‘other ill-treatment’), particularly as a part of verbal or non-verbal threats. Adjudicators and policy-makers have grappled, arguably at a greater depth than with other methods of psychological torture, with the circumstances in which fear-based methods amount to torture or other ill-treatment. The pursuit of non-coercive standards of police interrogation has further underscored the need to better distinguish the prohibited from the permitted. Upon this background, this article reviews the existing jurisprudential and social scientific literature in formulating a lens through which fear-inducing methods could be better functionally conceptualised. Method: This article has identified, through systematic full-text search of databases, texts with keywords ‘threat’, ‘fear’, ‘coercion’, ‘intimidation’, ‘distress’, ‘anguish’ and ‘psychological pressure’. The identified texts, limited to English-language journal articles, NGO reports, court-cases and UN documents from 1950 to date, were then selected for relevance pertaining to conceptual, evidentiary and legal critique provided therein. Discussion: Whilst it is broadly recognized that the deployment of fear to inflict violence can amount to torture, methods of threats or coercion are not adequately conceptualized particularly at the lower end, i.e. routine interrogational torture. Here, principles pertaining to the legitimate use of force and minimum level of severity are used as functional guidelines to distinguish the prohibited from the permitted. The power, practice and proximity of state authorities to harm necessarily qualify threats as real, immediate and credible and therefore torturous.

The European Court of Human Rights on the ‘Access to a Lawyer’ Directive 2013/48/EU: the Quest for a Coherent Application of the Right to a Legal Assistance in Europe?

The right to a custodial legal assistance has always been considered a key procedural guarantee in criminal proceedings, which allowed for the effective realisation of other ‘due process’ rights of the suspected or accused person. The ‘Access to a lawyer’ Directive 2013/48/EU is one of the outcomes of the massive legal reform which followed the famous Salduz ruling (2008), where the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) prominently stated that the accused shall be provided with assistance of counsel since the initial stages of police interrogation. At the same time, scholars have not paid attention to the possible effects of Directive 2013/48/EU on the practice of the Strasbourg Court. The aim of this paper is to shed light on the way the ‘Access to a lawyer’ Directive is perceived by the ECtHR, given the incredible uncertainty surrounding this issue. The author argues that - paradoxically - the Directive text seems to have had significant impact on the Ibrahim, Simeonovi, Beuze lines of reasoning, framing possible derogations from maximum guarantees of access to a lawyer stemming from the earlier Salduz judgement. Even though the ECtHR tends to avoid direct analysis of the Directive 2013/48/EU provisions, it seems to have accepted the lowest level of protection provided by this EU Law act. This could be rather problematic for the non-EU Convention signatories’ criminal justice systems, being encouraged to follow the standard of procedural guarantees stemming from the EU legal order - which these states preferred not to join (or were not allowed to join).

An Analysis of Police Interrogation from the Perspective of Presupposition: A Case Study of Jodi Arias Case

Nowadays, as crimes have become increasingly complicated, it is difficult for interrogators to find out all the criminal facts before interrogation, so that interrogation becomes a significant process to clear up some facts and prove whether the interrogated is guilty or not. However, some criminals always conceal the criminal facts and resist interrogation. This difficulty decides that interrogators need some interrogatory skills to elicit some criminal facts from the suspect. Presupposition is one of the interrogatory skills frequently used by interrogators so that it is very necessary to study interrogatory language from the perspective of presupposition. However, the literature review indicates that few research studies police interrogation from the perspective of presupposition. Therefore, this paper is to apply presupposition theory classified by Yule (2000) to analyze interrogatory language in Jodi Arias case. Specifically, it is to analyze how interrogators make use of presuppositions to elicit more information and explore the functions of presuppositions in investigatory interrogation. In order to address the problem, this paper employs both quantitative and qualitative method to analyze police interrogation in Jodi Arias case. The results show that there are five types of presuppositions identified in the selected data, that is, existential presupposition, factive presupposition, lexical presupposition, structural presupposition, counter-factual presupposition, and their frequency varies from each other. Secondly, presupposition enables the interrogatory language to be more concise and euphemistic and presupposition help the interrogators increase the pervasive effect and presupposition can help set a trap for the suspect to admit his or her guilt. This study will enlarge the application scope of presupposition and even linguistics and help interrogator employ presupposition into interrogation and improve their interrogation skills.